US threatens to annex Greenland - 2025/2026

  • #521
They do.

IMHO - they fail to use it and they should learn. Building casinos is not a way out, if you think of it.

US history with the natives has been “not easy”, but every country has done the same with own natives! Rinse, repeat. But still some have better results than others.

So I always felt that our natives could use better elders, and demand more. They are different as tribes but they could view themselves as a group. But I never lived there and suspect that what I see is the result of “indigenous PTSD” that has never been dealt with.

The human part of the situation with the Greenlanders concerns me most.

For example: if a group with another native language is adopted, how is the language treated? It is not an Indo-European language, but it is alive and an official language of Greenland. Much has been done to preserve Kalaallisut.

Do we recognize it as a second official state language, as New Zealand treats Māori? Or what?

You take a tiny, but self-governing entity, because of its minerals and whatever. But you can’t pretend that the entity doesn’t exist.

No, seriously, think of this. They speak mother tongue and as I suspect, many speak Danish. If they need treatment they use own doctors or go to Denmark, right.

Now what will happen if they need medical help and need to go to “the continent”? How do they express themselves?
Denmark and Greenland have responded to the issue with the statement that, in 2026, we can trade with people, we cannot trade people.

What the US is proposing today is to trade people. That is, the US is proposing that the people of Greenland and their homes, property, lifestyles will be traded to the United States in exchange for money.

People in the US need to wake up and ask themselves - is it okay for their government to trade them, or give them, to China in exchange for money? That is exactly what their government is demanding from Greenlanders - that they be sold to the US.
 
  • #522
Just thinking the same. HE makes me sick.

That's a shame if you feel you have to keep your head down. I'd hope most people here in the UK realise not all Americans support what's going on.
We with any level of an IQ, moral compass and so on are DISGUSTED. He does NOT represent us at all. Yes, there are the low thinking, greedy and selfish among us everywhere, those are the ones that like to align themselves with him, the haters of anyone not 'like them'. Fear and insecure due to their willful and or inborn ignorance as a human being. Those kind of people exist all over the world. IMO
 
  • #523
"Greenland is not for sale" has deep meaning.

People in Greenland don't own the land. They lease it. Greenlanders adhere to the concept that nobody can own land.

In Greenland, all land belongs to the people and is managed by the public authorities, preventing private land ownership....The land ownership law in Greenland is driven by a philosophy. Greenlanders believe that land is a shared resource and not something that should be owned by individuals. They believe all land belongs to people, collectively.

It's a concept the president could never understand. imo

 
  • #524
Come on any minute now!
 
  • #525
I'm just listening to the US president speech at Davos.

If we strip out all the propaganda - the claims that we know are untrue, and all the Biden blaming remarks, does he say anything?
 
  • #526
I'm just listening to the US president speech at Davos.

If we strip out all the propaganda - the claims that we know are untrue, and all the Biden blaming remarks, does he say anything?
No I checked. It's just a few sniffles and deep breaths and 1 weird spitty sound.
 
  • #527
I'm beginning to wonder if Trump is in full-blown psychosis. Needless to say, this is not my field of expertise but the introductory paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on the subject do seem to fit very well with what we are seeing.

 
  • #528
Denmark and Greenland have responded to the issue with the statement that, in 2026, we can trade with people, we cannot trade people.

What the US is proposing today is to trade people. That is, the US is proposing that the people of Greenland and their homes, property, lifestyles will be traded to the United States in exchange for money.

People in the US need to wake up and ask themselves - is it okay for their government to trade them, or give them, to China in exchange for money? That is exactly what their government is demanding from Greenlanders - that they be sold to the US.
Isn't that sort of what is going on with Taiwan? They claim to be independent, but the PRC says no. The world and UN sort of sold out the Taiwanese by saying there can't be two Chinas.
 
  • #529
The US Government certainly has a unique view of history.

"Trump reiterated that the US needs Greenland — which he called a big mountain of ice — for its “strategic defense” against any Chinese or Russian attacks.

According to him, World War II proved that Denmark is incapable of defending Greenland. The Germans took Denmark in a day in 1940. "Without us, you'd be speaking German and a little Japanese," Trump said. The Americans then took over the defense of Greenland.

Trump denies that a peaceful transfer is impossible, arguing that countries have done so many times in the past. According to him, the Greenland issue is therefore "not a threat to NATO.
...

Trump cited history to bolster his claim to Greenland: during World War II, the US defended Greenland because Denmark was no longer able to do so. He finds it "ungrateful" that the US received nothing in return.

That's incorrect, because Denmark and the US signed a treaty in 1951 that allows the stationing of American troops. At the height of the Cold War, there were around 10,000 troops stationed in Greenland, and there were 10 bases and another 10 weather and radar stations, but the US itself reduced that to around 150 troops at a single base."

 
  • #530

Why he needs Greenland for the energy reserves and to change regulations:
"Environmentally they don't let them drill"

He continues his diatribe against wind
"Every time it goes round they lose $1000"
"I haven't been able to find any wind farms in China ... they use a thing called coal mostly"
The claims by the United States president regarding wind farms in China are easily proven to be incorrect. Surely he doesn't expect anyone to believe him.

"Offshore wind farms may do more than boost renewable energy: they might support marine ecosystems, too. That’s the takeaway of a new study conducted in China. The researchers found that wind turbines provided support for colonies of oysters and barnacles and that fish species and biomass were more abundant near the turbines than they were in an area without the machines.

The study counters a frequent criticism of offshore wind farms—that they are detrimental to marine life and may damage the seabed. China, while being the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, is a global leader in renewable energy build-out, including offshore wind projects. It has the largest wind power capacity of any nation and plans to build the world's largest wind turbine.

 
  • #531
The rambling is boring ...
 
Last edited:
  • #532
No I checked. It's just a few sniffles and deep breaths and 1 weird spitty sound.
I heard him say war is bad, so there's that.

jmo
 
  • #533
Just thinking the same. HE makes me sick.

That's a shame if you feel you have to keep your head down. I'd hope most people here in the UK realise not all Americans support what's going on.
there have been a few polls in the US on whether we should attempt to take control of greenland. the numbers are generally 10-20% supporting vs. 60-80% opposing, with the rest made up by unsures.

when the question is whether we should acquire it by force, support drops into single-digits, and opposition approaches 90%.

edit: keeping in mind something like 10% of americans think they could win a fight with a grizzly bear, 90% is about as good as you can expect on anything
 
  • #534
  • #535
there have been a few polls in the US on whether we should attempt to take control of greenland. the numbers are generally 10-20% supporting vs. 60-80% opposing, with the rest made up by unsures.

when the question is whether we should acquire it by force, support drops into single-digits, and opposition approaches 90%.
To put a source on it:

The new polling by CBS News/YouGov shows that 70 percent of Republicans are against Trump utilizing military force to take control of Greenland. Among Democrats, that number is 97 percent, whereas it is 90 percent among independents. Overall, 86 percent of U.S. adults opposed military force against the U.S. ally.

When it comes to the possibility of Trump utilizing federal funds to purchase Greenland, Republicans are much more supportive, with 64 percent saying they'd approve of such a plan. However, most independents and Democrats remain staunchly opposed to the idea—75 percent and 96 percent respectively.


 
  • #536
there were multiple sources, so i got lazy and just summarized them
 
  • #537
It would perhaps help if he could remember which country it is he's not going to invade.

Sounds like the strategy of repeating something over and over again until everyone believes that it is true, but it is not true that one NATO country threatening another NATO country does not threaten NATO.
 
  • #538
Re Trump's Greenland statement, it's alarming to me how everyone is taking his word on this:

“people thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force"

He's a proven liar. He lies all the time. You can't believe a word he says.
 
  • #539
i don't think anyone takes his word for it, i think they just can't do anything
 
  • #540

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,640
Total visitors
1,770

Forum statistics

Threads
638,451
Messages
18,728,654
Members
244,434
Latest member
OrangeToucan192
Back
Top